5 ms·

So.. how is 'freebooting' different to posting on reddit/HN/imgur/$site ? You're growing your 'brand' as a poster of interesting/funny things (as seen via Karm

So.. how is 'freebooting' different to posting on reddit/HN/imgur/$site ? You're growing your 'brand' as a poster of interesting/funny things (as seen via Karma), I suppose that as long as these entities don't attempt to claim this media as 'original content', I don't really have a problem. If anything, attributing to the original creator is as simple as pressing 'share status' on facebook, instead of posting a direct url to the content in question. edit - I fundamentally misunderstood the term freebooting. Will leave comment intact so replies still make sense, but thank you to child posters for clearing up my misconception.

manigandham 11y ago
The views are on facebook rather than the originating post/platform because the actual video itself is ripped and posted. This damages rankings, analytics, SEO, editorial control and ad revenue.
- randomgyatwork 11y ago
  Ad revenue is the most important part of this.
ihuman 11y ago
Freebooting is not posting a link to someone's original content. It is when you reupload the content to your page/channel/website, and then link that. The views (and ad revenue) go to the reuploader instead of the original creator.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  90% of content on the default subreddits has been ripped from its original source and rehosted on imgur or gfycat. The remaining 10% are links to YouTube. The people doing it aren't profiting from ads like they would by doing it on Facebook, but they're still taking away the pageviews from the original creator.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Sure, and that's probably considered "freebooting" as well.
    - r721 11y ago
      I wish imgur did something similar with reuploads of images, now that would be an interesting experiment to watch.
  - Systemic33 11y ago
    However, that rehosting is usually not to steal traffic, but because most of the webpages that host the original, would experience what is called the hug of death, when thousands of viewers suddenly flock to their website. So linking to the original content, is best done as a addendum to the rehosted content, to still allow for viewers to check out the original creator.
    - overcast 11y ago
      Yes, I'm sure all the freebooters are just doing this to avoid the hug of death. 99% of the time I see no mention of the original content creator in any imgur link. Often times, someone further down in the comments will dig it up and tell people.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Another reason is that half of the time the original source has slow and shitty webpage. Standardized, mostly bullshit-free interface is what made imgur and gyfcat win.
        overcast 11y ago
        That's fine, but it still doesn't solve the problem here. People have their work ripped off, without any mention of it.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  You get to monetize fb videos?
  - ihuman 11y ago
    No, but you can monetize videos on other platforms. Even if FB videos don't have ads, the rehoster is still taking away ad money from the original creator (but the rehoster doesn't get the money).
    - TheLogothete 11y ago
      But you said "The views (and ad revenue) go to the reuploader instead of the original creator." ??
      - ihuman 11y ago
        In cases like youtube, it does. But that does not apply to FaceBook.
randomgyatwork 11y ago
Part of the problem is that people screen cap youtube videos and post them on Facebook. Usually the creators would make money though views on Youtube.
milesftl 11y ago
my understanding is tons of fb pages were simply people stealing a youtube video, reuploading it to facebook, and thus the OC creator never was getting credit/views/hits/ad revenue for the content. Even though youtube has archaic dmca takedown policies, it sort of prevents this type of thing from happening to such an obviously illegal degree.
gdulli 11y ago
It's not that different. It's trivial to game reddit by reposting someone else's dumb gif and get your account enough karma that the spam filters don't stop you from doing whatever you want until the end of time. It happens endlessly.
mintplant 11y ago
"Freebooters" often crop out watermarks and claim rehosted content as their own.

manigandham 11y ago

The views are on facebook rather than the originating post/platform because the actual video itself is ripped and posted. This damages rankings, analytics, SEO, editorial control and ad revenue.

randomgyatwork 11y ago
Ad revenue is the most important part of this.

ihuman 11y ago

Freebooting is not posting a link to someone's original content. It is when you reupload the content to your page/channel/website, and then link that. The views (and ad revenue) go to the reuploader instead of the original creator.

wlesieutre 11y ago
90% of content on the default subreddits has been ripped from its original source and rehosted on imgur or gfycat. The remaining 10% are links to YouTube. The people doing it aren't profiting from ads like they would by doing it on Facebook, but they're still taking away the pageviews from the original creator.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Sure, and that's probably considered "freebooting" as well.
  - r721 11y ago
    I wish imgur did something similar with reuploads of images, now that would be an interesting experiment to watch.
- Systemic33 11y ago
  However, that rehosting is usually not to steal traffic, but because most of the webpages that host the original, would experience what is called the hug of death, when thousands of viewers suddenly flock to their website. So linking to the original content, is best done as a addendum to the rehosted content, to still allow for viewers to check out the original creator.
  - overcast 11y ago
    Yes, I'm sure all the freebooters are just doing this to avoid the hug of death. 99% of the time I see no mention of the original content creator in any imgur link. Often times, someone further down in the comments will dig it up and tell people.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Another reason is that half of the time the original source has slow and shitty webpage. Standardized, mostly bullshit-free interface is what made imgur and gyfcat win.
      - overcast 11y ago
        That's fine, but it still doesn't solve the problem here. People have their work ripped off, without any mention of it.
TheLogothete 11y ago
You get to monetize fb videos?
- ihuman 11y ago
  No, but you can monetize videos on other platforms. Even if FB videos don't have ads, the rehoster is still taking away ad money from the original creator (but the rehoster doesn't get the money).
  - TheLogothete 11y ago
    But you said "The views (and ad revenue) go to the reuploader instead of the original creator." ??
    - ihuman 11y ago
      In cases like youtube, it does. But that does not apply to FaceBook.

randomgyatwork 11y ago

Part of the problem is that people screen cap youtube videos and post them on Facebook. Usually the creators would make money though views on Youtube.

milesftl 11y ago

my understanding is tons of fb pages were simply people stealing a youtube video, reuploading it to facebook, and thus the OC creator never was getting credit/views/hits/ad revenue for the content. Even though youtube has archaic dmca takedown policies, it sort of prevents this type of thing from happening to such an obviously illegal degree.

gdulli 11y ago

It's not that different. It's trivial to game reddit by reposting someone else's dumb gif and get your account enough karma that the spam filters don't stop you from doing whatever you want until the end of time. It happens endlessly.

mintplant 11y ago

"Freebooters" often crop out watermarks and claim rehosted content as their own.